Four police murdered in WA coffee shop: Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[Little-Acorn]

Recently four police officers of the state of Washington were gunned down in a coffee shop, by a person who apparently entered the shop for the purpose of deliberately targeting those officers. Since this is a politics-discussion forum, I guess we should as a political question related to this tragedy that gabby has already pretended to answer without giving any detains or justification:

There is clearly a need to protect such officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:

"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?

[Insein]

If anything, this incident reinforces the need for the 2nd ammendment. We the people have the right to "bear arms" and protect ourselves from the government and other dangers. In recent decades, people have wanted more power for the police to "protect us" from the dangers of the world. This incident only serves to illustrate that the police are people just like us and have no more ability to protect us then we do ourselves.

We have the right to be responsible gun owners. Criminals will still get guns regardless of the restrictions placed on purchasing them as we have seen time and time again. So limiting honest citizens the right to own a gun only serves one purpose. It limits the people's ability to protect themselves from the government.

[gabosaurus]

No one wants to take away guns. Just restrict who owns them. Right now, there are no restrictions that are enforceable.
We need gun registration and the closing of loopholes on gun sales.
Of course, the gun nuts will oppose this, because they want everyone to have the right to have a gun. Including criminals and homicidal maniacs.

[Insein]

The problem with that, gab, is that they have enforceable gun control on the books already. Every gun purchased legally is traceable. The problem is that the guns used in crimes are a majority illegally purchased by criminals from smugglers or other criminals. Placing larger restrictions on those that purchase guns legally does not stop the illegal sale of guns to criminals. Criminals will always get the guns if they want them because they don't care what the law says. Hence the word criminal.

[HogTrash]

No one wants to take away guns. Just restrict who owns them. Right now, there are no restrictions that are enforceable.
We need gun registration and the closing of loopholes on gun sales.
Of course, the gun nuts will oppose this, because they want everyone to have the right to have a gun. Including criminals and homicidal maniacs.

Convicted felons are forbidden from owning a firearm...Any felon who obtains a gun did so illegally...Criminals care nothing about obeying the laws.

There is absolutely no gun laws or bans that could be inacted that would have prevented this convicted felon from getting a gun and killing 4 cops.

Gun bans embolden criminals, increasing crime...The only people gun laws and bans will affect is the law-abiding citizen who is no threat to anyone.

The people who influenced your "gun" beliefs know this...They're only goal is to outlaw the private ownership of all guns by honest lawabiding citizens.

[Little-Acorn]

The problem with that, gab, is that they have enforceable gun control on the books already. Every gun purchased legally is traceable. The problem is that the guns used in crimes are a majority illegally purchased by criminals from smugglers or other criminals. Placing larger restrictions on those that purchase guns legally does not stop the illegal sale of guns to criminals. Criminals will always get the guns if they want them because they don't care what the law says. Hence the word criminal.

Gabby knows that. It has been pointed out to her, many times on this forum.

But she will simply keep coming back and demanding more restrictions, again and again, despite knowing that her proposals are bunk. She has it stuck in her head that more laws means more safety, and no amount of evidence showing otherwise will change that. One of the characters in the kids' movie "Finding Nemo" comes to mind, one colored blue.

You may have to make a decision in the future, just how many times do you want to repeat your refutation of her "ideas", before giving it up as useless effort.

[hjmick]

When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

[Missileman]

No one wants to take away guns. Just restrict who owns them. Right now, there are no restrictions that are enforceable.
We need gun registration and the closing of loopholes on gun sales.
Of course, the gun nuts will oppose this, because they want everyone to have the right to have a gun. Including criminals and homicidal maniacs.

There are already laws on the books that restrict convicted felons from possessing a firearm. The animal that shot those cops was illegally armed...please explain how restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens from owning a weapon would have prevented those cops from dying...be specific please.

[darin]

^^^ Dont hold your breath.

[HogTrash]

Liberals are not equiped to handle specifics on any subject beyond their standard programmed politicaly correct responces.

[Insein]

Gabby knows that. It has been pointed out to her, many times on this forum.

But she will simply keep coming back and demanding more restrictions, again and again, despite knowing that her proposals are bunk. She has it stuck in her head that more laws means more safety, and no amount of evidence showing otherwise will change that. One of the characters in the kids' movie "Finding Nemo" comes to mind, one colored blue.

You may have to make a decision in the future, just how many times do you want to repeat your refutation of her "ideas", before giving it up as useless effort.

We always have to challenge them on it. It only proves the point if they refuse to answer. Eventually, like a brainwashed child, she might finally start to see the light if we tell her the truth enough.

[MtnBiker]

^^^ Dont hold your breath.

quite right, no specific answer will come